On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
Hi.
Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA
stack, using only some controller drivers of old ata(4) by having
`options ATA_CAM` enabled in all kernels by default. I have a wish to
drop
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:35:35PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 27.03.2013 23:32, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:22:14PM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
Hi.
Since FreeBSD 9.0 we are successfully running on the new CAM-based ATA
stack, using only some controller drivers
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:22:11AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote:
On 28.03.2013 00:05, Steve Kargl wrote:
Last time I tested the new one, and this was several months
ago, the system (a Dell Latitude D530 laptop) would not boot.
Probably we should just fix that. Any more info?
I can't
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 22 December 2011 11:47, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
There is the additional observation in one of my 2008
emails (URLs have been posted) that if you have N+1
cpu-bound jobs with, say, job0 and job1
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 02:49:51PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 23 December 2011 11:11, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
One difference between the 2008 tests and today tests is
the number of available cpus. ?In 2008, I ran the tests
on a node with 8 cpus, while
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:07:58AM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Are you able to go through the emails here and grab out Attilio's
example for generating KTR scheduler traces?
Did your read this part of my email?
Attilio,
I have placed several files at
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:31:45AM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:52:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
I have placed several files at
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd
dmesg.txt -- dmesg for ULE kernel
summary-- A summary that includes
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:31:45AM +0100, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 04:52:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
I have placed several files at
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd
dmesg.txt -- dmesg for ULE kernel
summary-- A summary
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 09:01:15PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 22/12/2011 20:45 Steve Kargl said the following:
I've used schedgraph to look at the ktrdump output. A jpg is
available at http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/freebsd/ktr.jpg
This shows the ping-pong effect where here
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 22 December 2011 11:47, Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
wrote:
There is the additional observation in one of my 2008
emails (URLs have been posted) that if you have N+1
cpu-bound jobs with, say, job0 and job1
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:14:24PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
2011/12/15 Steve Kargl s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identified 4
real report on which we could work
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 05:25:51PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
I basically went through all the e-mail you just sent and identified 4
real report on which we could work on and summarizied in the attached
Excel file.
I'd like that George, Steve, Doug, Andrey and Mike possibly review the
few
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:23:46PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
On 12/12/11 16:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 02:47:57PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
Not fully right, boinc defaults to run on idprio 31 so this isn't an
issue. And yes, there are cases where SCHED_ULE shows much better
performance then SCHED_4BSD. [...]
Do we have any proof at hand for such cases where
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:18:35PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
On 12/12/2011 15:51, Steve Kargl wrote:
This comes up every 9 months or so, and must be approaching FAQ
status. In a HPC environment, I recommend 4BSD. Depending on the
workload, ULE can cause a severe increase in turn around time
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:03:30PM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
Tuning kern.sched.preempt_thresh did not seem to help for
my workload. My code is a classic master-slave OpenMPI
application where the master runs on one node and all
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 10:58:25AM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:20:09 +0100
Ulrich Sp?rlein u...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, 20.01.2011 at 21:17:40 +0100, Ulrich Sp?rlein wrote:
Hello,
Currently our buildworld relies on groff(1) and vgrind(1) being present
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:59:43PM +, Alexander Best wrote:
well i did exactly what they did in the video. watch a 1080p video and move
the output window around while compiling the kernel.
It is trivial to bring ULE to its knees. If you
have N cores then all you need is N+1 cpu
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:45:36PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
I have another box (of many) running FreeBSD 8.0-BETA2/amd64 with 2 GB
RAM and a Athlon64 2,2GHz CPU having 800(!) ports installed. Can you
imagine how long this box will be occupied by 'portupgrade -af'? I guess
'cherry-picking'
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:55:04PM -0500, Josh Carroll wrote:
I also noticed that behavior, shouldn't compiler/linker look
into /usr/lib32 without additional -B switch?
--
regards, Maciej Suszko.
I don't know if it should or should not, but I can confirm that this
behavior was around
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 02:26:15PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
Steve Kargl wrote:
By increasing the kernel message buffer, I was able to
get the previous Unread portion im my last email.
Unread portion of the kernel message buffer:
lock order reversal: (sleepable after non-sleepable
In trying to update from a 6.2-release to 6-2.-stable,
I run into a nasty panic which results in a corrupt
backtrace. It looks like a cascade of panics. In
6.2-release, I initialize my ath wirelss NIC with the
following script
#! /bin/sh
ifconfig ath0 inet 192.168.0.10
ifconfig ath0 ssid
By increasing the kernel message buffer, I was able to
get the previous Unread portion im my last email.
Unread portion of the kernel message buffer:
lock order reversal: (sleepable after non-sleepable)
1st 0xc34caec0 ath0 (ath0) @ /usr/src/sys/dev/ath/if_ath.c:5210
2nd 0xc32cbe24 user map
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:44:52PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
wrote Steve Kargl thusly...
By increasing the kernel message buffer, I was able to
get the previous Unread portion im my last email.
Unread portion of the kernel message buffer:
lock
I have a colleague who installed FreeBSD 6.1-stable onto
an Alienware MJ-12 laptop. A verbose dmesg is at
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/alienware.dmesg
We are trying to getting his wireless nic up, but seem to
have run into a cardbus issue. I've built a custom kernel
and stripped
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 09:20:37PM -0500, John Merryweather Cooper wrote:
Steve Kargl wrote:
cardbus0: CIS pointer is 0!
cardbus0: Resource not specified in CIS: id=10, size=100
cardbus0: Resource not specified in CIS: id=14, size=0
cardbus0: Resource not specified in CIS: id=1c, size
Doug,
Your recent commit appears to have broken buildkernel on AMD64.
For some reason the COMPAT_LINUX32 option is not honored, so I
get the wrong header files.
/usr/obj/usr/src/make.amd64/make -V CFILES -V SYSTEM_CFILES -V GEN_CFILES |
MKDEP_CPP=cc -E CC=cc xargs mkdep -a -f .newdep -O2
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:12:17PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
Have you tried to boot with the old contigmalloc using the sysctl
option vm.old_contigmalloc=1?
Yes. This makes an enormous difference in boot up times.
With vm.old_contigmalloc=1, fxp0 probes within a few seconds.
Without it, fxp0
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 07:54:39AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
None of these problems occur when I use 4 GB memory. About the only
strangeness, which seems to come from the BIOS, is that it recognizes
only 3.5 GB. If I put all DIMMS in, it recognizes the full 8 GB
memory.
I realize
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:14:45AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 March 2005 at 14:35:46 -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 07:54:39AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
None of these problems occur when I use 4 GB memory. About the only
strangeness, which
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 10:32:33AM +0930, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:14, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Have you run sysutils/memtest86 with the 8 GB?
Heh. Difficult when the system doesn't run.
You could try http://www.memtest86.com although that doesn't do 4Gb :(
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 09:52:57PM +0100, S?ren Schmidt wrote:
As usual, even if it works on all the HW I have here in the lab, thats by
far not the same as it works on YOUR system. So use glowes and safety shoes
and if it breaks I dont want the pieces, but would like to hear the nifty
32 matches
Mail list logo
